Debating between London, England and Venice, Italy...

[Anonymous]

I want to go to Europe around March 2017. I'm debating between London and Venice. I've never been to Europe, so I want to have new experiences and see touristy things.

Any thoughts on which is better? Any suggestions on where to stay in either city? (I prefer hotels over airbnb.)

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

They are completely different experiences. London is a modern, vibrant city while Venice is a beautiful, decaying work of art.

Would you rather go to Baltimore or Annapolis?

[Anonymous]

Can you do a few days in both?

[Anonymous]

In March, I would go to Italy over England. But you will only need a couple of days in Venice. Why not Rome instead?

[Anonymous]

Go to London, but don't limit yourself to the city. Head to the Cotswolds to see old villages. Bourton on the Water is the Venice of England.

And while London is a more modern city than Venice, it has a more classic feel thanks to it's old buildings. It's not like ny or San Fran. It has a much more classic feel.

Fwiw, I think the uk is much safer than Italy.

[Anonymous]

The two are very different, like comparing apples and oranges. A better comparator would be choosing between London and Rome, not London vs Venice.

If these are the only two choices I have in March, I would hands down choose London.

There is much more to do in London than in Venice, where you can easily see the main attractions in a couple of days. Also, with the water and canals, March may be cold and miserable. On the other hand, you can combine Venice with a visit to Rome or somewhere else in Italy, which would make sense.

How long is your planned trip?

[Anonymous]

Check the dates for Carnival that year--Venice could be cool but you'll want to go elsewhere as well. I think Venice plus some other, nearby cities as a nice, relaxing vacation but it would be a totally different vibe than London.

[Anonymous]

2 days in Venice, go see an opera in Verona, frescos in Padova, and down to Parma and Florence. A good week.

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone!! I did think Rome might be good, too. Again, I'm not partial to one or the other--they'd both be new experiences.

I did consider spending a week in London and the maybe taking a cheap flight to/from Venice for a couple of days.

The weather and water in Venice are big considerations. Also, the language barrier is a factor.

[Anonymous]

Been to both several times. Venice for me.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I disagree that Venice is strictly a 2-day trip. If you like art and history, there's enough to keep you busy for the better part of a week. There are many museums, from the accademia to the Peggy Guggenheim, plus you could visit the Murano glass making etc. that is on top of the mainstays such as st marks and the doge's palace. Staying longer than 2 days also allows you to linger and explore--have a long morning cappuccino, seek out some interesting shops among the touristy ones.
But that might not be your thing, OP. For you, what's the appeal of Venice, and of London? Weatherwise, I'd take Venice over London at that time of year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks everyone!! I did think Rome might be good, too. Again, I'm not partial to one or the other--they'd both be new experiences.

I did consider spending a week in London and the maybe taking a cheap flight to/from Venice for a couple of days.

The weather and water in Venice are big considerations. Also, the language barrier is a factor.

Pp above. Op, given that this is your first venture to Europe, I would choose Italy and do Rome, Venice and 1-2 day trips. It seems like you have 10 days, Rome - easily can spend 3-5 days there, 1-2 days for Venice, and may be combine with Florence or go South or North to Lake Como area (really beautiful).

[Anonymous]

Daily average temps for Venice in March are from 44 F to 55 F (month start to end).

Not exactly lovely weather, but manageable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I disagree that Venice is strictly a 2-day trip. If you like art and history, there's enough to keep you busy for the better part of a week. There are many museums, from the accademia to the Peggy Guggenheim, plus you could visit the Murano glass making etc. that is on top of the mainstays such as st marks and the doge's palace. Staying longer than 2 days also allows you to linger and explore--have a long morning cappuccino, seek out some interesting shops among the touristy ones.
But that might not be your thing, OP. For you, what's the appeal of Venice, and of London? Weatherwise, I'd take Venice over London at that time of year.

Me again, just saw your new post, OP . If Rome is an option! I'd choose that!!!! Rome is so nice. Lots to do. Weather is good in March. Don't worry about the language barrier. Italians speak good english And are friendly. You have almost a year to acquire a few basic phrases to make it even smoother. Rome is a living city, unlike Florence and Venice which are historic but lean heavily towards tourism for their existence nowadays.
Of course London is very alive, too. It really depends on what inspires you. What do you like to do?

[Anonymous]

8:00 and 8:41 pp here. I don't know why, but I am really rooting for you to choose Rome. You'll love it.